Related Links

Congress is trying to work out a bill that would mean bring in a clunker, get cash towards the purchase of a new high mileage car (Photo source: Flicka at Wikimedia Commons)

On Capitol Hill, there’s growing momentum for legislation called “Cash for Clunkers.” In fact, there are several bills circulating in Congress and the details are in flux. But the general idea is to use tax dollars to encourage people to trade their old gas guzzling clunker for a new fuel efficient car. The hope is to help the slumping auto industry and the environment at the same time. Tamara Keith gives the environmental claims a test drive:
http://environmentreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/feature_keith_042709.mp3

Transcript

On Capitol Hill, there’s growing momentum for legislation called “Cash for Clunkers.” In fact, there are several bills circulating in Congress and the details are in flux. But the general idea is to use tax dollars to encourage people to trade their old gas guzzling clunker for a new fuel efficient car. The hope is to help the slumping auto industry and the environment at the same time. Tamara Keith gives the environmental claims a test drive:

At DarCars, a Toyota dealership in Silver Spring, Maryland people are shopping for cars.

But business is down.

Tammy Darvish is vice president of DarCars automotive group. Here’s how she describes “cash for clunkers.”

“It’s money from heaven.”

Well, from angels in Congress anyway. Bring in a clunker, get cash towards the purchase of a new high mileage car.

“I think they were talking about $4,000 or $5,000 or even $2,000. Whatever it is. Any incentive that you could add to the manufacturer incentives and the dealer incentives just make it all the better deal for the customer.”

And as we walk around the lot, Darvish points out plenty of cars she figures could qualify as fuel efficient replacements for clunkers. Like this one that gets 35 miles to the gallon on the highway.

“So here’s a Corolla and it’s not a hybrid technology vehicle and it’s still getting great gas mileage and all the manufacturers have vehicles, you know in those ranges.”

But not everyone is sold on the merits of a cash for clunkers program.

Dan Sperling heads the Institute for Transportation Studies at University of California Davis.

“What it mostly does, and we should be honest about it is it stimulates vehicle sales.”

He says this is more an economic policy with a green polish.

“It is supporting the use of more low carbon efficient vehicles, that’s good. It is supporting the automotive industry. That’s good. The problem is, it’s a very expensive way to do that.”

Whether a federal cash for clunkers program will be able to claim environmental success will largely come down to what counts as a clunker – and just how fuel efficient the car that replaces it needs to be.

For example, one version of the legislation would allow any car 8 years old or older to be junked in exchange for cash.

But an 8 year old car isn’t exactly a gelloppe. That’s younger than the average car on the road.

Bill Chameides is dean of the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University.

“I would say that cash for clunkers programs that only put a requirement on the age of a car, from an environmental point of view is a real clunker, if you pardon the pun.”

To really analyze the environmental impact of a program like this Chameides says you also have to consider what it takes to manufacture a new car. And it turns out a lot of greenhouse gas emissions come from building a car.

“When you drive that new car out of the showroom, you already have 1 year of carbon dioxide emissions already in the atmosphere.”

So, to make up for those emissions, he says cars getting junked have to be real gas guzzlers, and the new cars need to be gas sippers.

“If we want to sell this as an environmental program we need to make sure that it’s focusing on really making a difference in the amount of gasoline we use, the amount of CO2 we emit. And therefore we need to have a limit on the miles per gallon of the scrap car. It need to be way down at the bottom of the spectrum. And we need to have a limit on the new car. It needs to be up high on the spectrum.”

There’s disagreement in Congress about what the mileage requirements for the program should be.

It’s one of those details yet to be worked out, that will determine just how green cash for clunkers will really be.

Related Links

Brook Wilke and his son, Charlie, visit a test
farm at The Kellogg Biological Research Station. Wilke
and other researchers are testing how well perennial
versions of popular grain crops, such as wheat, will
grow in Michigan. The test farm isn't too far from Battle
Creek, the home of the commercial breakfast cereal industry. (Photo by Shawn Allee)

John Edgerton is a part-time farmer who's growing
test plots of perennial wheat on his Michigan farm. He's
interested in whether the plants might allow sheep to graze
a field after harvest, but still produce for years afterward. (Photo by Shawn Allee)

If you had a bowl of cereal or maybe a muffin this morning, you ate flour from an annual crop. They grow one season, they die, then get re-planted again the next year. Sounds as natural as could be, but repetitive planting can wear out farmland. It can cause soil erosion and cause more water pollution. Now, some scientists are trying to coax grain crops into growing for years at a time. Shawn Allee visited researchers who are testing perennial wheat in the heart of cereal country:
http://environmentreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/feature_allee_042709.mp3

Transcript

If you had a bowl of cereal or maybe a muffin this morning, you ate flour from an annual crop. They grow one season, they die, then get re-planted again the next year. Sounds as natural as could be, but repetitive planting can wear out farmland. It can cause soil erosion and cause more water pollution. Now, some scientists are trying to coax grain crops into growing for years at a time. Shawn Allee visited researchers who are testing perennial wheat in the heart of cereal country:

I’ve headed to a test farm run by Michigan State University. It’s not that
far from Battle Creek,
Michigan where cereal companies like Kelloggs got started.

Right now, they kinda look like spindly blades of grass. But in some ways,
this is miraculous; regular
wheat dies after harvest. These have been harvested, and now they’re
popping back up.

“We’ll harvest these this summer, and then in the fall, they’ll re-grow.
They build a deep root
system, and they’re able to come back. So, at first, they start off very
similar, but they keep
growing longer, and they re-grow after harvest. That’s the real
difference.”

Actually, that’s just the start of the difference between annual grains
like wheat and perennial
varieties.

Dr. Snapp says when farmers plant most annual grain crops, soil gets torn
up again and again from
planting and replanting. Rain can wash away exposed top-soil.

Perennial crops get planted once every few years, so they might hold soil
and they might need less
fertilizer that runs off into streams and rivers.

Snapp: “So, the roots of traditional crops including annual wheat are
usually 1-2 feet. These
root systems might be down 6 feet. They can use fertilizers more
efficiently, so they can pick
it up from deep and then move it up where we want it, into the grain.”

Allee: “And if the roots are deep enough, you might need less herbicide
to kill weeds, right?
If that perennial wheat comes up strong enough, it’s already out-competing
the weeds that
are next to it?”

Snapp: “Right, and each year it should do it better for a couple years at
least, we don’t know
how long.”

Dr. Snapp and her colleagues use the word “maybe” a lot when they talk
about perennial grains. It’s
mostly because testing these crops is slow work. That’s one reason they’re
letting some farmers run
their own small tests.

She introduces me to one farmer.

“Hi John! Come on over!”

Part-time farmer and teacher John Edgerton says he checked his test batches
recently.

“I didn’t know what to expect and I went out there and low and behold,
it’s greening up
beautifully. In fact, now, it may be a little too thick. We’ll see.”

Edgerton wants to know whether sheep can get cheap feed from leftover wheat
grass, or whether
farmers could save on tractor fuel.

“One farmer said to me, you know, if I could get three or four years of a
decent crop of
perennial wheat without having to plow, there’d be enormous savings.”

Transcript

The current swine flu outbreak was first detected in a region of Mexico with large confined animal feeding operations – factory farms. Many environmentalists wonder if there’s a connection. Lester Graham reports:

A US government brochure indicates it’s not uncommon for influenza viruses to be exchanged between pigs and humans.

Mark Wilson is a professor of epidemeology at the University of Michigan. He says factory farms can make that exchange easier.

“The combination of animals being confined in close quarters as well as the large number of animals is likely to lead to more transmission of infectious agents among them. And as people – workers – are in contact with these animals, the possibility of transmission from those animals to those workers is increased. Absolutely.”

Related Links

Research finds that Americans don't wash their hands enough (Photo courtesy of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)

Health experts say handwashing is the single most important thing you can do to reduce your chance of getting sick or making other people sick. But as Rebecca Williams reports, recent research finds antibacterial soap is not any better than plain soap at keeping us from getting sick. And some scientists and doctors worry there might be risks to widespread use of antibacterial products:
http://environmentreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/feature_williams_042709.mp3

Transcript

Health experts say handwashing is the single most important thing you can do to reduce your chance of getting sick or making other people sick. But as Rebecca Williams reports, recent research finds antibacterial soap is not any better than plain soap at keeping us from getting sick. And some scientists and doctors worry there might be risks to widespread use of antibacterial products:

Some studies estimate about 70% of liquid soaps on store shelves have antibacterial ingredients in them. Ingredients such as a chemical called triclosan.

Allison Aiello teaches epidemiology at the University of Michigan School of Public Health. Aiello is lead author of a paper in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases.

She examined more than two dozen studies on antibacterial soaps containing triclosan. She says triclosan kills bacteria by going after the bacterium’s cell wall.

“The cell wall cannot be kept intact anymore; it’s not able to survive.”

But Aiello says there’s a growing body of evidence that even though antibacterial soap kills bacteria, it’s no better than regular soap at preventing illness.

Regular soap doesn’t kill bacteria, but Aiello says it works just as well at getting rid of bacteria and viruses like swine flu.

“Regular soap, is basically, it has a surfactant in it and what it does is it allows bacteria to be dislodged from hands and then the motion that you’re using under water helps dislodge it and make it go down the drain, basically.”

Aiello says it’s important to note that the soap studies were done with basically healthy people.

She says more research needs to be done to find out if antibacterial soaps could be more effective for elderly people or people with compromised immune systems.

But Aiello says generally, for healthy people, antibacterial soaps are no better than plain soaps at keeping you healthy.

And she says there could be risks to antibacterial products. She says there’s evidence from lab studies that antibacterial soaps might be adding to the emergence of super-bugs: bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics.

“In the laboratory setting, it is clear that there are mechanisms that can lead to antibiotic resistance when bacteria are exposed to triclosan.”

Aiello says they haven’t seen this play out for antibacterial soaps in the real world yet. But she says researchers need to keep an eye on it because antibiotic resistance might take some time to develop.

The soap industry dismisses the idea that antibacterial soaps might have something to do with antibiotic resistance.

Brian Sansoni is with the Soap and Detergent Association.

“The last thing we want to see is people discouraged from using beneficial products. Antibacterial soaps have proven benefits, they’re used safely and effectively by millions of people every day. Consumers should continue to use these products with confidence.”

The Food and Drug Administration has the final word on antibacterial soaps. But they’re still trying to figure out what to say about them.

The FDA has been trying to come up with rules for the products for more than 30 years. Right now there are no formal rules about the levels of antibacterial chemicals in soaps. And there aren’t any rules about how the products can be marketed or labeled.

There’s one thing both the soap industry and doctors agree on – Americans don’t wash up often enough with any kind of soap.

A recent study found one out of every three men walk out of the bathroom without washing their hands. Women did better than the guys, but still, about one of every ten women didn’t wash their hands either.

Experts say after you sneeze, cough or visit the restroom, you should scrub your hands with soap and water for 20 to 30 seconds.

Related Links

Kathryn Stewart and her boyfriend Roger Williams have gone car-free in Phoenix. They live 30 miles apart, so it can be a very long bike ride to see each other. (Photo by Rene Gutel)

The cars we drive pump out a lot of pollution. The average car puts out about 10,000 pounds of carbon dioxide every year. So whenever we drive, we’re adding to the global warming problem. To cut down on that pollution, there are some people who are giving up their cars altogether. They’re joining a movement called the “World Carfree Network.” Rene Gutel reports on one of their members:
http://environmentreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/feature_gutel_042709.mp3

Transcript

The cars we drive pump out a lot of pollution. The average car puts out about 10,000 pounds of carbon dioxide every year. So whenever we drive, we’re adding to the global warming problem. To cut down on that pollution, there are some people who are giving up their cars altogether. They’re joining a movement called the “World Carfree Network.” Rene Gutel reports on one of their members:

Kathryn Stewart doesn’t own a car. She’s never even had a driver’s license. She’s an editor at a publishing company and commutes mostly by bus and by bicycle.

And while you might think you know plenty of people like Stewart, especially in big cities such as New York or Chicago, consider this: Stewart lives in Phoenix – the land of freeways and strip malls and summers that top 115 degrees.

“Honestly it’s really difficult in Phoenix. It’s challenging but not impossible if you’re really committed to it. It takes a lot of advance planning.”

(sound of street)

Stewart’s work is just a few miles away, but it takes her half an hour to get there.

She says one of the hardest parts of being carfree in Arizona are those broiling summer days. But she has a secret weapon – a heat-shielding umbrella that she daintily refers to as her parasol.

But major cities in the US aren’t necessarily built for people who like to walk to work. This is especially true in the West.

Carol Johnson is a planner for the city of Phoenix. She says this is due, in part, to a theory that was popular in the 1960s, when everything was planned for the car.

“This is my opinion, maybe there were some efficiencies of scale in terms of infrastructure – if you only had to put one road in, even it was six lanes wide, that was more efficient.”

But a lot of cities now are trying to get people out of their cars. They want to cut pollution and ease traffic problems.

The mayor of New York, for example, proposed a fee on cars to get more people to take public transit. And San Francisco hosts “CarFree Days” where they promote walking, running, and bicycling.

(sound of biking outdoors)

Okay so this may all sound well and good, but what does being carfree mean for Kathryn Stewart’s social life? How does she meet people and have any fun in this city built for cars?

Turns out she manages. She and her boyfriend – Roger Williams – see each on weekends. They like to take bike rides.

“We going right or left, Roger? Take a left. After these cars.”

They live about 30 miles apart – not a long car trip, but by bike, the ride can take two and a half hours. Williams owns a car, but he figured out pretty early on in their relationship that a willingness to be carfree was a good way to impress her.

Williams: “The first real date that we did, I surprised her and she was asking me questions, oh what are we going to do? Where are we going to go? And I’m like, it’s a surprise but we’ll be able to walk the whole date.”
Gutel: “So you were like the carfree Casanova?”

Williams: (laughter) “I love it! I saw the opportunity and I seized the opportunity.”

Stewart and Williams also encourage each other to be healthy and have less of an impact on their environment by the foods they eat. But being carfree, that’s the main sacrifice.

“I really feel like I’m making a big dent, cause, you know, there’s a lot that people say you can do, make small changes, do this, do that, but when you don’t have a car, it’s automatically, like, a big change.”

Stewart says she realizes it’s big change most people would have a hard time with. But it’s a choice she’s dedicated to in order to do something about global warming.

Related Links

Today almost everything that goes into your car's gas tank started as oil (Photo by Shawn Allee)

How you fuel your car could change pretty quickly. California air regulators are requiring gasoline producers to reduce greenhouse gases by 10% by 2020. That could force big oil companies to invest in alternative fuels. Tamara Keith reports when it comes to environmental regulations, what happens in California usually spreads from there:
http://environmentreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/spot_keith_042709.mp3

Transcript

How you fuel your car could change pretty quickly. California air regulators are requiring gasoline producers to reduce greenhouse gases by 10% by 2020. That could force big oil companies to invest in alternative fuels. Tamara Keith reports when it comes to environmental regulations, what happens in California usually spreads from there:

Today almost everything that goes into your car’s gas tank started as oil. But in the future it could be very different.

“The fuels that we will be moving towards are electricity, biofuels and hydrogen mostly.”

Daniel Sperling is a member of the California Air Resources Board which voted in the new rule.

Sperling says the goal is to reduce the overall greenhouse gas emissions from vehicle fuels. That could mean oil companies might even have to buy credits from power companies for electric cars.

“You start transforming the oil industry, getting off of oil. I mean that’s what we talk about and this is a policy that will actually do it.”

The California rule even looks at how much greenhouse gas pollution goes into making corn ethanol.

Related Links

LEED buildings get points for green things like bike racks and good energy use, but it doesn’t actually enforce energy efficiency (Photo by Lester Graham)

The biggest energy users in America are not cars and trucks – they’re buildings. Buildings use about 40% of the nation’s energy. In 2000, the US Green Building Council introduced a program that certifies “green” buildings. It’s called LEED. That stands for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. A new version of the LEED standards is being released today, April 27. But Samara Freemark reports some critics see serious flaws in the LEED program:
http://environmentreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/feature_freemark_042709.mp3

Transcript

The biggest energy users in America are not cars and trucks – they’re buildings. Buildings use about 40% of the nation’s energy. In 2000, the US Green Building Council introduced a program that certifies “green” buildings. It’s called LEED. That stands for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. A new version of the LEED standards is being released today, April 27. But Samara Freemark reports some critics see serious flaws in the LEED program:

Before LEED came around in 2000, developers didn’t really spend a lot of time worrying about whether their buildings were green. They were designing and constructing buildings they could market. Green just wasn’t a priority.

“It was always the last thing on the agenda for the staff meeting, because nobody really understood what success looked like.”

Brendan Owens is a LEED spokesman. He says the people who came up with LEED wanted to change the culture of building in America. Make building ‘green’ marketable.

And they realized that to do that, they’d have to define what a green building looked like.

So they created a checklist. Install solar panels and you get points. Bike racks: more points. Get a green roof – somewhere you can grow plants — add some points.

Enough points and the developer gets a LEED certification. Certified buildings get a plaque. Developers get the PR boost that comes from building green. The public gets a more sustainable building. That’s the idea, anyway.

The program really caught on. More than 10,000 projects are currently going through the LEED process. And universities, municipalities, even the federal government are writing the standards into their own codes.

But critics say the system might be spreading too fast.

“The people who are writing the LEED Standards are in effect writing our country’s most important laws.”

That’s Henry Gifford. He’s a building engineer in NYC. He’s also one of LEED’s most outspoken critics.

Gifford says it’s possible to earn LEED certification – and cash in on the PR benefits of being green – without actually fixing a building’s biggest environmental problem.

“The 3 most important things to make a building environmentally friendly, are energy use, energy use, energy use. All the other things in the LEED checklist, which I think are wisely chosen and very important, they pale in comparison to the energy use.”

The LEED checklist does give points for good energy use- a lot of them, actually. But it doesn’t enforce energy efficiency.

Instead, developers win points by predicting their buildings will perform well. Developers do have to submit energy use data once their building is up and running. But if the building turns out not to save any energy? Brendan Owens says…

“What we do, is we notify the building that they’re not performing up to their potential.”

But no one’s coming around to unscrew that accreditation plaque. The building gets to keeps its certification.

On average LEED buildings seem to do better than others on energy use. But there are plenty of LEED-certified buildings that do use more energy than comparable non-certified ones.

Gifford says that’s unacceptable. No energy hogs, no matter how many bike racks or green roofs they have – should be allowed to call themselves green.

“It’s a scandal to have any underperforming building win or retain a rating for being green. I’m sorry. Every building labeled as green should have very good energy performance. Until we get there, we’re making believe.”

LEED doesn’t claim that certified buildings are perfect. Instead, Brendan Owens says the standard is meant to provide a holistic measure of greenness.

“I’ve heard LEED certified buildings described as sustainable. And there are a few, but the lions share of those projects haven’t achieved it. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that the rating system is flawed. It just means that people are misunderstanding what it’s about.”

In other words, people are reading more into certification than they should. Critics like Henry Gifford worry that will lead to complacency when it comes to truly greening buildings.